Cessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4262 times:
Out of my heart, I would choose the L-1011. It is a more technologically advanced aircraft, with a better safety record. but we all know which one was the greater commercial success. The L-1011 is a fascination for more than one poster here. I am lucky to have served on them back in my Air Transat days. A solid airplane. Highly rated by pilots. Nice figure. But I do like all Tri- Jets. I was doing a YVR- LAX the other day and I happened to see a Hawaian DC-10 pull into the gate right in front of me... what a sight.
As for the 1011, if only its engine troubles would've been dealt with when the project was still in its infancy, I believe we would have seen a higher number of 1011's than 10's.
Garuda From Indonesia, joined Nov 2000, 584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
I've never flown a Tristar before, and the Diesel-Ten is my first jet experience, so I'll could be a bit biased here.
However, as Cessnapimp has said, Tristars are more advanced technologically, and they have RR-engines (my favourites). So in (my) technical standpoint, L1011 wins.
But I like DC-10 looks better than L1011, I never like L-1011's nose, it's one of the ugliest airplane nose I've ever seen (although I like the -500 series, but I always fond of all long-range, shorter bodied derivative, like the 747SP, A342 and Tristars-500). And the cockpit windows of the DC-10s, they're huge!!. I have talked to a DC-10 captain before, and he said that in terms of manuvering airplane in the ground, nothing beats the DC-10, mostly because of the huge cockpit windows. Not sure about the cabin windows in L1011s, but those in the DC-10s are the biggest among all the airplanes I've ever flown (compared to those tiny windows in Airbusess or new Boeings).
And the best thing about the DC-10 is the take-off. I heard ppl saying that take-offs in B752 is like inside a rocket, not sure abt that though since I've never flown on one, but I flew a 25 yrs old DC-10 last July and it still leaped to the sky effortlessly.
In all, my choice is still the DC-10, despite the early safety record
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4224 times:
The L-1011 has had an excellent safety record with no major accidents due to design defects like the DC-10. I like the movable control devices on the wings that come up during turbulence to stabilize the aircraft.
SAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
The L1011 is a far better designed and built aircraft than the DC10 - Sioux City would never have happened on an L1011.
The RB211-524B4I engines are marginally Stage IV compliant compared with the marginally Stage III compliant CF6-50C2. They also burn up to 15% less fuel than the CF6 ... the reason they are quieter, with lower emissions and fuel burn is due to their triple spool design.
The DC10-30 outperforms the L1011s in terms of range (except the -500) and payload.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4143 times:
The L-1011 has four hydraulic lines, each one is apart from the other and not close together like the three hydraulic lines on the DC-10. If the hydraulic lines were separate on the DC-10, the incident at Sioux City would not have happened. The L-1011 has a slat locking system and one way shut off valves that the DC-10 lacks. The AA Flt 191 crash at ORD in May 1979 could have been prevented if the slats were locked so they would not have retracted after the engine separated ripping the hydraulic lines in the wing. The one way shut off valves could have prevented the loss of hydraulic fluid.
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2202 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4072 times:
I like the L1011 my last flight was on August 16th 2002 on BWIA. One of the things I like best about the L1011 is the way that it doors closed and opened with the touch of a button. I have always found the that the flight attendants having to actually open the door so archaic and the L1011 automated door should be standard on all new widebody jets.
Better on the eyes than the DC10 as the engine was blended into the plane
Broke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1325 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3980 times:
As far as riding, the L-1011 flys more nose up than the DC-10. FA's have to heft the service carts uphill (they do have brakes) when moving through the cabin. It's not a lot, but it is noticeable.
The L-1011 is an analog electronic airplane (I believe that some -500's are digital) versus the digital electronics of today. The DC-10 is a big hydro-mechanical airplane; like the DC-8 and DC-9, only bigger.
An Eastern L-1011 had a fan disc failure on a #2 engine during climb out from JFK; the fragments severed lines in 3 of the 4 systems (damaged, but did not penetrate the lines in the 4th) or it would have had a worse problem than the Sioux City DC-10. The stabilizer would have gone full Airplane Nose Up.
The view from the jumpseat on an L-1011 is magnificent!! The window starts at your hip and goes above your head. You are sitting behind and a little outboard of the captain.
I'll be flying on DC-10-30's from DTW-FCO-DTW next month; I'll let you know how it goes.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
BTW, active ailerons were only installed on the -500's with their bigger wing and heavier loading. Part of the function was to reduce wing bending loads. AFAIK, it was never refitted to the longbodies.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3801 times:
Man, I wonder what would have happened if Lockheed got the chance to produce an L-1011NG. That would have been pretty damn cool. The L-1011 was so far ahead of it's time when it came out. I wonder what gadgets they would have now?
FutureFO From Ireland, joined Oct 2001, 3132 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3708 times:
I prefer the L1011 one for the simple fact that it has the RR engines. But the L10 is a better designed aicraft and that Lockheed was really trying when they designed it to impress the world and it lasted longer in service then a lot of the DC-10's. Rolls Royce Forever.